Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Setting aside orders
COST BITES 345: RECEIVING PARTY'S FAILURE TO FILE ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ON A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT A NULLITY: CLEVER AND COMPLEX ARGUMENTS DID NOT PREVAIL

COST BITES 345: RECEIVING PARTY’S FAILURE TO FILE ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS ON A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT RENDERS THE ASSESSMENT A NULLITY: CLEVER AND COMPLEX ARGUMENTS DID NOT PREVAIL

February 8, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Setting aside judgment

What are the consequences if a party lodging the documents for a provisional assessment of costs fails to file all the relevant documents and the assessment goes ahead without the judge seeing all the points of dispute? .  This is…

HIGH COURT SETS ASIDE AN ORDER MADE FOLLOWING AN APPLICATION WITHOUT NOTICE : THIS IS A REHEARING IN FULL - THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE TO SHOW AN ERROR SUCH AS TO WARRANT SETTING ASIDE THE ORIGINAL ORDER

HIGH COURT SETS ASIDE AN ORDER MADE FOLLOWING AN APPLICATION WITHOUT NOTICE : THIS IS A REHEARING IN FULL – THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE TO SHOW AN ERROR SUCH AS TO WARRANT SETTING ASIDE THE ORIGINAL ORDER

February 3, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content

Here we look at a case where the court set aside an order made without notice. The Master found that the evidence presented to him at the initial hearing was “neither full nor frank”.  It is a reminder of the…

SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER MADE WITHOUT A HEARING OR MADE WITHOUT NOTICE : THE RELEVANT CRITERIA

SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER MADE WITHOUT A HEARING OR MADE WITHOUT NOTICE : THE RELEVANT CRITERIA

July 28, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Setting aside judgment

The previous post looked at the judgment in Kuznetsov, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Camden [2019] EWHC 3910 (Admin). In that judgment Mostyn J stated that there was no authority on the issue of the criteria when…

COSTS ORDERS MADE WITHOUT A HEARING: HENRY VIII AND THE RELEVANT CRITERIA FOR VARYING ORDERS

COSTS ORDERS MADE WITHOUT A HEARING: HENRY VIII AND THE RELEVANT CRITERIA FOR VARYING ORDERS

July 28, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Setting aside judgment

We are looking again (and not for the last time)  at the decision of Mr Justice Mostyn in   Kuznetsov, R (On the Application Of) v London Borough of Camden [2019] EWHC 3910 (Admin). This time on the question on the…

PERMISSION TO APPEAL - TWO YEARS OUT OF TIME - SET ASIDE: COURT WAS "MISLED BY SERIOUS MISREPRESENTATIONS AND NON DISCLOSURES"

PERMISSION TO APPEAL – TWO YEARS OUT OF TIME – SET ASIDE: COURT WAS “MISLED BY SERIOUS MISREPRESENTATIONS AND NON DISCLOSURES”

October 11, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content

In Kovarska v Otkritie International Investment Management Ltd & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1485 the Court of Appeal set aside an extension of time for appealing.  The order had been granted without a hearing. It was held that the Court…

MICROSOFT, SERVICE AND FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE: HIGH COURT JUDGE SAYS "NO"

MICROSOFT, SERVICE AND FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE: HIGH COURT JUDGE SAYS “NO”

February 28, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form

One feature of this blog  for this year has been the duty owed by litigants making without notice applications.  Another example of the problems caused can be seen in the judgment on Mr Justice Marcus Smith in Microsoft Mobile OY…

SETTING ASIDE AN EARLIER ORDER: A WIDE AND UNFETTERED DISCRETION?

June 16, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Judgment, Members Content

In Cole -v- Howlett [2015] EWHC 1697 (Ch) Mr Justice Peter Smith conducted detailed consideration of the power, and discretion, to review and set aside orders already made.  The judge agreed to set aside his earlier order striking out the…

THE DUTY OF FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE: A CASE IN POINT

January 28, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In PCV -v- The Y Regional Government of X [2014] EWHC 68 (Comm) Mr Justice Hamblen set out, in clear terms, the rigorous nature of the duty to give full and frank disclosure to the court when making a without…

EXTRAORDINARY CASE: THE SOLICITOR MADE LITIGATION UP: THE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE CLIENT

November 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The opening paragraphs of the judgment  set out an almost unbelievable set of facts in Islamic Investments Company of the Gulf (Bahamas) Ltd -v- Symphony Gems NV & others [2014] EWHC 377 3777 (Comm). The judgment considered the consequences for…

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • EXPERT WATCH 56: A SECTION OF A JUDGMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY CRITICISES A MEDICAL EXPERT: “I WAS STRUCK BY THE ABSENCE OF A RIGOROUS AND CAREFUL MULTIDISCPLINARY APPROACH TO THIS ISSUES IN THIS CASE”
  • EXPERT WATCH 55: WAS THIS WAR? (OR CAUSED BY WAR): TRIAL JUDGE CONSIDERS THE EVIDENCE OF TWO EXPERTS ON GEOPOLITICS, BUT FINDS ONE IS PARTISAN
  • PERSONAL INJURY MATTERS 17 (1): LIABILITY CATCHUP (1): PUB OPERATOR IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR DOORMEN’S ACTS: A CONCLUSION REACHED “WITH REGRET”
  • COST BITES 411: HOW DOES A COURT DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF AN INTERIM PAYMENT AS TO COSTS WHEN THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN BUDGETED? SHOULD A PAYMENT BE ORDERED AT ALL?
  • COST BITES 410: A CLAIMANT’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES RELATING TO ISSUE AND PLEADING CANNOT BE USED AS A GROUNDS FOR REDUCING ITS RECOVERABLE COSTS

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.

To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.